Related papers: Reply to the Comments on the 12C+12C fusion S^*-fa…

This work by Feng and papers which published its conclusions do not cite nor do they deal with objections by the author published in 2013-2014. There are many fundamental problems. We will summarize here the principal problems, as published…

We give a detailed description of the differences between the factorization and results derived from SCET and QCDF for decays B -> M1 M2. This serves as a reply to a comment about our work "B-> M1 M2: Factorization, charming penguins,…

I reply to a Comment by Q. Wang and W.G. Unruh regarding my paper "Hiding the Cosmological Constant" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 131302].

We comment on the calculation of the Chern-Simons coefficient in (2+1)-dimensional gauge theories at finite chemical potential made by A.N.Sissakian, O.Yu.Shevchenko and S.B.Solganik (hep-th/9608159 and hep-th/9612140).

We show that arguments in the comment by Schwab et al. quant-ph/0503018 on our recent work are invalid.

In a recent paper, Wang. et al. (2009) claim that Tsallis' nonadditivity of q-nonextensive statistical mechanics (Gell-Mann and Tsallis 2004, Tsallis 2009) is mathematically inconsistent and hence one should carefully review Tsallis' ideas…

In the paper based on the question of Zhang and L\"{u}[15], we present one theorem which will improve and extend the results of Banerjee-Majumder [2] and a recent result of Li-Huang [9].

The purpose of the paper is to point out some typos and to observe that the main result of V. Ramakrishna, K. Flores, H. Rabitz and R. J. Ober, Phys. Rev. A Volume 62, 054309, 2000 remains valid (and this validity can be verified in a…

It will be shown that the comment [1] contains numerous errors, misconceptions, inaccuracies, false assumptions, misunderstandings and unjustified claims. The analysis of the comment is built on a false assumption that the terminal current…

It is shown that the proof of the main theorem in the article "On the Existence of the N-Body Efimov Effect" by X. P. Wang, J. Funct. Anal. 209 (2004) pp. 137--161, is incorrect.

The authors of preprint arXiv:2009.00286 and paper Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 130501 (2020), Y. Sivan and Y. Dubi, made several wrong and inconsistent comments on our papers [J. Phys. Chem. C 117, 16616-16631 (2013), ACS Photonics 4 (11),…

First principles prove why a recent claim by R.H. Xie and P.S. Hsu (Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 243201 (2006)) on the scaling power of a covalent Sutherland parameter to expose a universal function cannot be validated.

This comment criticizes the above paper by Xiao-Yin Pan and Viraht Sahni. It is shown that their formulation of "Physical Current Density Functional Theory" is, at best, a garbled reformulation of the Vignale-Rasolt current-density…

A number of authors have recently pointed out inconsistencies of results obtained with the Huang-Yang multipolar pseudo-potential for low-energy scattering [K. Huang and K. C. Yang, Phys. Rev. A, v 105, 767 (1957); later revised in K.…

A Comment on the Letter by S. Zelakiewicz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1942 (2000).

Here we reply to the comment by A. F. Volkov, F. S. Bergeret, and K. B. Efetov.

A Comment on the letter by V. Koptev, et al. - Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 022301.

We refute in this Reply the criticisms made by M. Abdel-Aty [Phys. Rev. A 70, 047801 (2004)]. We show that none of them are founded and we demonstrate very explicitly what is wrong in the arguments developed by this author.

Defect physics is at the heart of microelectronics. By keeping track of the reference energy in total energy calculations, we explicitly show that the "potential alignment" correction vanishes, and the classic Markov-Payne correction yields…

We reply to the comments on our previous paper Physical Review Letters, Vol. 129, 087001 (2022), raised by Th\'eo S\'epulcre, Serge Florens, and Izak Snyman in arXiv:2210.00742.